Posted - 03/07/2013 : 14:35:56 When the Flames provided an offer sheet to Ryan O'Reilly recently, it was noted that O'Reilly had the league's highest (positive) giveaway/takeaway differential last season. (34 giveaways/101 takeaways, for a +67.)

At the other end of the spectrum, Ilya Kovalchuk had the league's worst giveaway/takeaway differential (-78), which included a league-leading 120 giveaways.

In looking at a few other players with a high negative differential, P.K. Subban finished -62 last season, and Ryan Getzlaf finished around the same with a -60.

For this season, Kovalchuk currently leads the NHL in giveaways, and once again, has the highest negative differential at -24. Dion Phaneuf is close behind with a -22.

The best positive differentials sit with Jonathan Toews and Marian Hossa who currently sit at +16 each. Toews and Hossa finished in 2nd/3rd place last season (after O'Reilly) with the next best positive differentials with +65 and +57 respectively. (Pavel Datsyuk also had a +57 last season.)

How important are the giveaway/takeaways stats? On the surface, you can't argue with the fact that takeaways are more favourable than giveaways.

You don't hear much about a player's giveaway/takeaway differential, but I remember a time when you rarely heard about plus/minus stats. And while both sets of stats have certain weaknesses (what team you play on, who your linemates are, playing time, etc.), the stats have some reflective value on a player's performance.

Once again, not the "be all end all," but if I'm an agent negotiating a player's contract, you can bet a positive plus/minus and/or a positive giveaway/takeaway differential are mentioned in negotiations!

22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Alex116

Posted - 03/14/2013 : 10:04:09

quote:Originally posted by slozoHa ha, should have known I couldn't slip that one by you guys . . . nope, no can do on the pic bud!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Okay, okay, i'll just take your word for it! Otherwise, if i claim she's not hot, you'll surely just yell "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" at me.

slozo

Posted - 03/14/2013 : 08:43:24

quote:Originally posted by Alex116I recall you asking for pics of Luongo's wife last year, and i believe i came through. Now......

I didn't get the "strongly disagree" bit, but am laughing now! The taco one though? I can't recall that one.....

Ha ha, should have known I couldn't slip that one by you guys . . . nope, no can do on the pic bud!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Alex116

Posted - 03/13/2013 : 19:38:36

quote:Originally posted by slozo

quote:Originally posted by leigh

quote:Originally posted by slozo...It's too bad that Leigh had to react like he did to my post . . . as if I somehow attacked him by "strongly disagreeing" . . . I was just giving my opinion on it, that's all. And how the stat is actually recorded is definitely an issue . . . would be interesting to see short video clips of what they said was a giveaway for Kovalchuk versus other players, etc . . . to get an idea of the whole thing.

And I didn't invalidate your points Leigh. I simply disagreed with them, no need to smash your stick on the boards over it. With a solid refutation of my opinion, I'll step back on many of my points to the guest who clearly has many good points of his own, and has opened us up to a thoughtful discussion.....

Sorry Slozo I'll use more winky smiley emoticons next time so you know I'm being sarcastic. I wasn't even the least bit put out by your "strong disagreement" and I thought the rest of my post (with the exception of my tongue in cheek last line) indicated that I was with you on what you were saying.

Haven't you seen "A Few Good Men" with Jack Nicolson, Tom Cruise and Demi Moore? I thought you would get my reference. It was obviously a poor attempt by me to use pop culture to be funny. And my 'Bacon Taco' comment might be a little too obscure.

It not being the classic "Truth?!? You can't HANDLE the truth!!!" line, I didn't catch it, sorry Leigh. Slipped by me, and I totally get it now, all fair enough.

Bacon taco . . . is that from Reservoir Dogs? (or is that "let's get a taco", after he talks about if the manager of a joint you're robbing gives you trouble, cut off his finger - the little one.)

Been a while for all these pop culture references, dude . . . I got two small kids, busy job, hot wife, and no time these days!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

I recall you asking for pics of Luongo's wife last year, and i believe i came through. Now......

I didn't get the "strongly disagree" bit, but am laughing now! The taco one though? I can't recall that one.....

slozo

Posted - 03/13/2013 : 17:18:35

quote:Originally posted by leigh

quote:Originally posted by slozo...It's too bad that Leigh had to react like he did to my post . . . as if I somehow attacked him by "strongly disagreeing" . . . I was just giving my opinion on it, that's all. And how the stat is actually recorded is definitely an issue . . . would be interesting to see short video clips of what they said was a giveaway for Kovalchuk versus other players, etc . . . to get an idea of the whole thing.

And I didn't invalidate your points Leigh. I simply disagreed with them, no need to smash your stick on the boards over it. With a solid refutation of my opinion, I'll step back on many of my points to the guest who clearly has many good points of his own, and has opened us up to a thoughtful discussion.....

Sorry Slozo I'll use more winky smiley emoticons next time so you know I'm being sarcastic. I wasn't even the least bit put out by your "strong disagreement" and I thought the rest of my post (with the exception of my tongue in cheek last line) indicated that I was with you on what you were saying.

Haven't you seen "A Few Good Men" with Jack Nicolson, Tom Cruise and Demi Moore? I thought you would get my reference. It was obviously a poor attempt by me to use pop culture to be funny. And my 'Bacon Taco' comment might be a little too obscure.

It not being the classic "Truth?!? You can't HANDLE the truth!!!" line, I didn't catch it, sorry Leigh. Slipped by me, and I totally get it now, all fair enough.

Bacon taco . . . is that from Reservoir Dogs? (or is that "let's get a taco", after he talks about if the manager of a joint you're robbing gives you trouble, cut off his finger - the little one.)

Been a while for all these pop culture references, dude . . . I got two small kids, busy job, hot wife, and no time these days!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

leigh

Posted - 03/13/2013 : 15:14:14

quote:Originally posted by slozo...It's too bad that Leigh had to react like he did to my post . . . as if I somehow attacked him by "strongly disagreeing" . . . I was just giving my opinion on it, that's all. And how the stat is actually recorded is definitely an issue . . . would be interesting to see short video clips of what they said was a giveaway for Kovalchuk versus other players, etc . . . to get an idea of the whole thing.

And I didn't invalidate your points Leigh. I simply disagreed with them, no need to smash your stick on the boards over it. With a solid refutation of my opinion, I'll step back on many of my points to the guest who clearly has many good points of his own, and has opened us up to a thoughtful discussion.....

Sorry Slozo I'll use more winky smiley emoticons next time so you know I'm being sarcastic. I wasn't even the least bit put out by your "strong disagreement" and I thought the rest of my post (with the exception of my tongue in cheek last line) indicated that I was with you on what you were saying.

Haven't you seen "A Few Good Men" with Jack Nicolson, Tom Cruise and Demi Moore? I thought you would get my reference. It was obviously a poor attempt by me to use pop culture to be funny. And my 'Bacon Taco' comment might be a little too obscure.

slozo

Posted - 03/12/2013 : 05:58:30

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I would assume Kovalchuk being the point man who floats while the remainder of his linemates plays a very positional game, and due to that he would receive more takeaway's. I would also assume a dump in or breakout pass being intercepted wouldn't count against this stat. I think I remember reading somewhere that this stat was used in a circumstance that the other team received a scoring chance due to a takeaway. If this stat was used in any other way I would assume there would be more recorded takeaways.

Either way, Kovalchuk is used in a fashion to creat offense on a very defensive team. Being that he would be double teamed more often than most other players due to his being used in the fashion, or his ability to carry the puck thru the defensive coverage versus relying on the Devils traditional dump and grind style and usually being high on the offensive rush, I wouldn't put to much into this stat.

That's another good point, the double team on star players. I mean, it makes a guy like Datsyuk look that much more impressive, and it gives a good reason why such a skilled puck handler like Crosby, Malkin or Stamkos doesn't have an amazing ratio.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

sahis34

Posted - 03/11/2013 : 19:10:14 Not a very relevant stat as good players will give it away more because they have the puck more.If they kept track of blatant defensive zone giveways then Id pay attention

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 03/11/2013 : 11:56:55 I would assume Kovalchuk being the point man who floats while the remainder of his linemates plays a very positional game, and due to that he would receive more takeaway's. I would also assume a dump in or breakout pass being intercepted wouldn't count against this stat. I think I remember reading somewhere that this stat was used in a circumstance that the other team received a scoring chance due to a takeaway. If this stat was used in any other way I would assume there would be more recorded takeaways.

Either way, Kovalchuk is used in a fashion to creat offense on a very defensive team. Being that he would be double teamed more often than most other players due to his being used in the fashion, or his ability to carry the puck thru the defensive coverage versus relying on the Devils traditional dump and grind style and usually being high on the offensive rush, I wouldn't put to much into this stat.

slozo

Posted - 03/11/2013 : 11:25:25

quote:Originally posted by Guest4178

As stated in my original post, the giveaway/takeaway statistics are not the "be all end all," and I further pointed out some of the inherit flaws in this stat, including the consideration of playing minutes.

Nonetheless, there has to be some merit in the fact that some players give up the puck more than others, and some are able to take away the puck more than others.

I'm not suggesting Kovalchuk is a lousy player, but he sure gives up the puck a lot. To use a statistic (ice time) to refute another statistic (giveaways/takeaways) is an interesting approach. To reflect Kovalchuk's playing time minutes, this can be addressed by pro-rating giveaways per minutes played.

Taking last season as an example, Kovalchuk led the league with 120 giveaways. If you prorate this to five less minutes per game (19 1/2 minutes instead of 24 1/2 minutes), Kovalchuk still leads the league in giveaways.

Now I'm going to compare Kovalchuk's stats to a player who has the best giveaway/takeaway differential in the NHL the past five seasons. That's Pavel Datsyuk, a player many believe (especially fellow NHLers) to be one of the top players in the NHL. Here are their comparative stats the past five seasons:

And here's what I found interesting when looking at some of the numbers. Kovalchuk's giveaway/takeaway differential started to go up significantly when his playing minutes went up. Forwards don't usually play 24+ minutes a game, and 4-5 season ago, Kovalchuk was playing around 21-22 minutes per game. (Just before he signed his $100 million deal with the Devils in 2010.) Maybe the Devils want to get the most out of their investment? But maybe the extra minutes are not productive minutes for Kovalchuk?

I don't want to "Moneyball" this thing, but the numbers must mean something? Why does the NHL keep track of giveaways and takeaways, something they started doing after the 2004-2005 lockout?

And to be absolutely clear, there are flaws in most statistics (especially when used in isolation), but in looking at the whole package of statistics, and watching Kovalchuk play, I think there's a weakness in his play. When I watch him play, he sometimes looks like he's floating on the ice, and I'm surprised when I see him on the ice for the full two minutes of a Devils power play.

A point was made that giveaways don't always lead to a scoring chance (or a goal), but the same could be said about faceoffs. You can lose many faceoffs without having a goal scored against your team, but hockey is a puck possession game. The idea is to win the puck and keep the puck. Not give it away.

Using Dastyuk as an example, he doesn't have the fewest giveaways, in part, because you're going to lose the puck when you're trying to be creative on the ice. But when Datsyuk loses the puck – look out! Watch how hard he works to get the puck back. And I can't say the same about Kovalchuk.

A very thoughtful and insightful post. Can't disagree with most of what you wrote, all fair points.

It's too bad that Leigh had to react like he did to my post . . . as if I somehow attacked him by "strongly disagreeing" . . . I was just giving my opinion on it, that's all. And how the stat is actually recorded is definitely an issue . . . would be interesting to see short video clips of what they said was a giveaway for Kovalchuk versus other players, etc . . . to get an idea of the whole thing.

And I didn't invalidate your points Leigh. I simply disagreed with them, no need to smash your stick on the boards over it. With a solid refutation of my opinion, I'll step back on many of my points to the guest who clearly has many good points of his own, and has opened us up to a thoughtful discussion.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Alex116

Posted - 03/09/2013 : 14:20:35 This is all i've been able to find as far as a definition, however, the more i read, the more i understand that it's not a truly accurate statistic. Apparently there's so much "judgement" in it that certain guys in certain rinks "score" it differently as far as what is a giveaway and what is a takeaway. As far as it in words, this is a couple definitions i came across......

•Giveaway: A giveaway occurs when a player's own actions and decision-making results in the loss of team possession of the puck.•Takeaway: A takeaway occurs when a defensive player causes a turnover and takes possession of the puck or when a defensive player makes a definitive effort to intercept a pass attempt and takes possession of the puck.

Giveaway

A form of turnover in which the player makes an unforced error that results in giving the puck up to the opposition. They can be unreliable as a statistic since the definition is subjective and individual rink scorers show significant differences in the way they record them.

Takeaway

A form of turnover in which the player takes the puck from the opposition, rather than gaining possession through opposition error. It can be unreliable as a statistic since the definition is subjective and individual rink scorers show significant differences in the way they record them.

Alex116

Posted - 03/09/2013 : 14:06:32

quote:Originally posted by Guest4382

Could someone define what a giveaway and takeaway are. For example if kovalchuk shoots the puck, misses the net, and the defense gains control of the puck is that a giveaway?

Read the last 5-6 posts in this thread, it's exactly what we've been discussing. No one seems to know for sure the true definition / distinction, but i don't think your scenario would count as a giveaway, though i could be wrong?

Guest4382

Posted - 03/09/2013 : 11:04:18 Could someone define what a giveaway and takeaway are. For example if kovalchuk shoots the puck, misses the net, and the defense gains control of the puck is that a giveaway?

Alex116

Posted - 03/08/2013 : 21:03:35 Just think, if he could cut the giveaways in half, score on half of that half, he'd be scoring an additional 30 points a year!

The puck is turned over numerous times in a game, and I would imagine the average player loses (or turns over) the puck at least a handful of times in a game.

Here's the thing though. We know Kovalchuk had the most giveaways the past five seasons, and using his average of 90 giveaways per season the last five seasons, this works out to just over one giveaway per game. Not a big number really, but once again, he ls the league leader.

On this basis, I'm going to suggest that league statisticians are only tracking blatant or egregious giveaways, and not casual non-consequential times where players lose the puck. To be "credited" with a giveaway, I suggest that it has to be a blatant and careless play, and perhaps (emphasis on perhaps) one which leads to a goal, or at the very least, a scoring chance the other way.

Interesting that numerous players (about half the league) have about one giveaway for every four games played, while Kovalchuk has at least one per game.

When compared to his peers (the other nine points leaders last season, all creative players with big minutes played), Kovalchuk's 120 giveaways is more than twice the average of the other nine players, this list which includes Malkin, Stamkos, Giroux, etc.

Alex116

Posted - 03/08/2013 : 14:12:17 Leigh, i wondered that myself. NO, not about being "strongly disagreed with", but about how the giveaways and takeaways are calculated? If you're on the PP and you try a cross ice pass that's deflected out center ice, is it a giveaway, even if your team retrieves it? If it deflects over the glass is it a giveaway? Or do they wait to see if your team wins the draw then decides? If you dump the puck in and your team fails to gain control, is that a giveaway?

So many instances that i'm unsure of except the obvious ones.

leigh

Posted - 03/08/2013 : 11:57:34 Well since you STRONGLY disagree Slozo, you win. Very dramatic, but everyone knows that there is no comeback for a "strong disagreement".

Your points are fair and admitedly I spent all of about 5 minutes thinking about it.

I'm confident that they don't include puck scrambles in the GT. I always thought that the GT stat had to be pretty blatant in order to be counted. In other words you had to have reasonable control of the puck and able to make a play. To me this wouldn't matter if you are on the PP or the PK.

I am not in the know to understand all the nuances of how the NHL calculates the GT. But I do know that the plus minus is not counted on the PP or PK perhaps some thought could be given to that for the GT as well but I'm not sure it needs to be. To me if you have reasonable possession and you are unable to get the puck out of your zone on the PK then you should be credited with a mistake, or a giveaway.

As for icetime, that may be a valid point. Perhaps a calculation that factors the amount of takeaways into your icetime and spits out a number? So if you end the game with 3 giveaways and you played 21:15 in icetime your GT would be -7.05. Conversely, if you ended the game with 3 takeaways in the same icetime you would be +7.05. A running tally would be used for the whole season.

regardless, something like this would still have to be displayed with the actual numbers, much like the GAA for goalies, you still want to see what the actual shots vs. goals are.

Posted - 03/08/2013 : 11:08:22 As stated in my original post, the giveaway/takeaway statistics are not the "be all end all," and I further pointed out some of the inherit flaws in this stat, including the consideration of playing minutes.

Nonetheless, there has to be some merit in the fact that some players give up the puck more than others, and some are able to take away the puck more than others.

I'm not suggesting Kovalchuk is a lousy player, but he sure gives up the puck a lot. To use a statistic (ice time) to refute another statistic (giveaways/takeaways) is an interesting approach. To reflect Kovalchuk's playing time minutes, this can be addressed by pro-rating giveaways per minutes played.

Taking last season as an example, Kovalchuk led the league with 120 giveaways. If you prorate this to five less minutes per game (19 1/2 minutes instead of 24 1/2 minutes), Kovalchuk still leads the league in giveaways.

Now I'm going to compare Kovalchuk's stats to a player who has the best giveaway/takeaway differential in the NHL the past five seasons. That's Pavel Datsyuk, a player many believe (especially fellow NHLers) to be one of the top players in the NHL. Here are their comparative stats the past five seasons:

And here's what I found interesting when looking at some of the numbers. Kovalchuk's giveaway/takeaway differential started to go up significantly when his playing minutes went up. Forwards don't usually play 24+ minutes a game, and 4-5 season ago, Kovalchuk was playing around 21-22 minutes per game. (Just before he signed his $100 million deal with the Devils in 2010.) Maybe the Devils want to get the most out of their investment? But maybe the extra minutes are not productive minutes for Kovalchuk?

I don't want to "Moneyball" this thing, but the numbers must mean something? Why does the NHL keep track of giveaways and takeaways, something they started doing after the 2004-2005 lockout?

And to be absolutely clear, there are flaws in most statistics (especially when used in isolation), but in looking at the whole package of statistics, and watching Kovalchuk play, I think there's a weakness in his play. When I watch him play, he sometimes looks like he's floating on the ice, and I'm surprised when I see him on the ice for the full two minutes of a Devils power play.

A point was made that giveaways don't always lead to a scoring chance (or a goal), but the same could be said about faceoffs. You can lose many faceoffs without having a goal scored against your team, but hockey is a puck possession game. The idea is to win the puck and keep the puck. Not give it away.

Using Dastyuk as an example, he doesn't have the fewest giveaways, in part, because you're going to lose the puck when you're trying to be creative on the ice. But when Datsyuk loses the puck – look out! Watch how hard he works to get the puck back. And I can't say the same about Kovalchuk.

slozo

Posted - 03/08/2013 : 05:29:44 I disagree strongly with Leigh - I think it's much worse than +/- stat, in that we often get a very negative view of a player's stats here (Kovalchuk is the poster boy for my point) when they are actually, in Pierre McGuire's lingo, a MONSTER performer!

These are the premier offensive forwards of our game right now who ALSO play on the pk (obviously they all play on the power play). Except that Kovie plays a full 3 minutes more ON AVERAGE than your Crosby or Stamkos . . . that is just an enormous difference. For comparison, if one includes defencemen for TOI, Kovalchuk falls into 11th place, and the next forward is at . . . wait for it . . . 61st.

All that time on the pk, means your giveaways are gonna take a hit. Why? Because you often have the puck, and you get a dump and heavy forecheck, that's why - and trying (as every player does) to get it out of the zone doesn't always happen easily, and then when the opposing team gets it, it's a giveaway.

Not every giveaway leads to a great scoring chance. Often, it's meaningless in that many giveaways and takeaways are middle of the ice scrambles, or better yet, a light forecheck where you get the puck but nothing happens afterward because the pass afterward is poor (tight checking game).

None of those top players I mentioned with Kovalchuk who are tops in ice time are high in plus minus either, considering their value/offensive production. Why? They are on the ice too damn much! It starts to even out! Crosby is tops at 17th in the league with a +11, but Stamkos is a 0, St. Louis is a 1, and Giroux is a -6 . . . more reflective of team play and time on ice than individual play.

Kovalchuk leads the league with 33 giveaways.Martin St. Louis is 6th in giveaways with 25.Crosby is 22nd with 19.More than half of that top 30 are defencemen.

My point is . . . clearly, there is a correlation with ice time and giveaways. A lot of it also depends on the style of play . . . is it a dump and chase team with a forecheck? (yes, that is NJ) That will pump up your giveaways guaranteed. Etc.

For me, it's a stat that MIGHT tell you something when put beside other more meaningful stats, but that's about it.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Guest9053

Posted - 03/08/2013 : 04:50:28 I view it more as a puck possession metric. For example, I haven't seen Karlsson's numbers but I assume he led all D in takeaways last year & this year at the time of his injury. I'd also assume he was fairly high in giveaways because the puck is pretty much always on his stick when he's on the ice.

Guest2701

Posted - 03/08/2013 : 02:09:58 dear guest 4178, in order to give the puck away, u have to have it in the 1st place thats why guys like kovie have such high giveaways, they are always carrying the mail, o'reilly is a defensive guy, and kills penalties, he takes the puck away and ices it, no chance for a take away, you'd be hard pressed to find many people who would take o'reilly over kovie

Alex116

Posted - 03/07/2013 : 17:11:59 Interesting to see Subban's and Phanuef's numbers you mention. Thinking real quickly about this giveaway/takeaway thing and i'd think it's uglier to have a dman with a bad ratio than a forward? Subban's numbers would be concerning! I guess maybe things balance out by him being a puck possesion dman and playing the pp, etc but i think i'd be more comfortable with a fwd being a minus than a dman? Wouldn't a dman's giveaway usually be more dangerous to a team than a forwards?

leigh

Posted - 03/07/2013 : 17:05:58 I love this post! Thanks guest! I think this stat is actually a little bit more telling than the plus/minus. For the most part you are responsible for your G/T stat. In most cases you only have yourself to blame, unlike the +/- where you could argue that it is skewed based on your linemates. Yes your linemates could be responsible for poor positioning, poor puck support, lack of effort, or errant passes etc but I think it is less skewed than the +/-.

I liken this stat more closely to face off wins. It's all about puck possession; you win a draw and you have it, you lose a draw and you don't (in case you didn't know) The same goes for G/T.